The Vindication Of Thomas Mulcair

Some will remember the abuse heaped upon NDP leader Thomas Mulcair back in 2012 when he said that Canada was suffering from the same Dutch disease that afflicted the Netherlands after natural gas fields boosting that nation's currency reduced the competitiveness of its exports back in the 1970s. The culprit in Canada was the unrestrained exploitation of its oil fields, leading at one point to our dollar being valued higher than the American one. Exports suffered, manufacturing continued to decline, and the Harper regime gleefully denigrated the NDP leader for an inconvenient truth.

It would seem that Mulcair's analysis has been validated by both statistics and analysis.

Says Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist Emanuella Enenajor,

"The currency's appreciation of almost 60 per cent over the last 15 years has really hurt the manufacturing sector".

The fact that oil prices have now dropped is not having the salutary effects one might hope for:

Just because low oil prices are reducing transportation and energy costs, and the floundering loonie is making Canadian exports attractive again — it doesn't mean the sector will bounce back immediately.

You can't just turn the lights back on in the factory and start sending the widgets out the door again.

When the energy sector started to lose steam, the old stalwarts of the economy weren't there to pick up the slack.

"The Dutch disease that Canada has experienced has been more than a decade in the making, and I think it has really hurt business confidence," added Enenajor.

Of course, with an election in the offing, expect the Harper regime to give no quarter, evidenced by party stalwarts like the redoubtable, predictable and hyper partisan Pierre Poilivre:

"The leader of the NDP calls [the natural resources] sector a disease!" Pierre Poilievre sneered at Mulcair across the floor of the House of Commons last week.

Here is the interview with Emanuella Enenajor:

Thomas Mulcair And Joe Clark On Bill C-51

H/t The Toronto Star

Yesterday, Tom Clark on The West Block asked both Mulcair and Clark for their thoughts on Harper's 'anti-terror' legislation. You will note that by the end of the interview, it would seem that Mulcair's 'principled' stand against the bill is perhaps less than what it seems as he hedges his political bets:

Rex Murphy Praises Thomas Mulcair's Stand on Bill C-51

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have no particular use for Rex Murphy. Yet last night I found myself in total agreement with him as he offered an eloquent rebuke of Harper's Bill C-51 by praising NDP leader Thomas Mulcair's opposition to it. You can watch his reasons below:

More On Our Opposition Leaders

Two posts I recently wrote were highly critical of both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair for their apparent embrace, for political purposes, of Bill C-51, the bill that will serve only to further erode our civil liberties in the chimerical hope of containing terrorists threats to Canada. I expressed my disgust over the fact that both leaders seem ready to abandon the broader interests of Canada for the sake of their own quest for power, fearful of being labelled by the Harper machine as 'soft on terrorism.'

I may have been too quick to judge Mr. Mulcair.

According to Tim Harper in today's Star, Mulcair is preparing to diverge from Trudeau's acquiescence:

Voters will decide whether Opposition leader Tom Mulcair is brave or foolhardy, but the official Opposition is preparing a case to oppose the bill — not simply by working around the fringe on oversight or sunset clauses, but by questioning the guts of a bill that gives the country’s spy agency radical new powers, allows longer and easier preventive detention and would criminalize the “promotion” of terror from a naif in a basement.

The oppositions leaders' non-performance on this issue thus far has bothered me for a number of reason, their refusal to safeguard our liberties being only one of them.

Their timidity also bespeaks a jaundiced view of Canadian voters, one that says we are easily fooled and manipulated, a contemptuous philosophy found at the core of Harper strategies these past nine years. And while I have frequently expressed genuine concern on this blog about the general level of political engagement of my fellow citizens, political leaders who capitulate to the lowest common denominator essentially preclude the possibility of establishing vision and real leadership.

It would seem that Mulcair is mindful of this to some degree:

Mulcair will likely announce his opposition when the House returns later this month.

Is he filling an opening left by the Liberals? Yes. Is he ensuring he responds to his base? Surely.

There may be cold feet in the caucus, but opposition MPs must raise the questions, provide the skepticism and, ultimately, oppose a law if that is their view. They’re not supposed to flee from a wedge issue.

Mulcair will have to stand and explain that keeping Canadians safe does not mean sacrificing civil liberties. He will have to fend off the inevitable attacks that he is a weak-kneed terrorist-hugger.

But he will stand and oppose a bill he believes is flawed, meaning we will have one opposition leader doing his job.

To me, an opposition leader doing his job, despite the inherent political risks, commands respect; playing it safe, as is Justin Trudeau, does not.

UPDATED: Stephen Harper And Dean Del Mastro: The Bromance Continues

I think this video amply illustrates their relationship:



UPDATE: How surprising - despite his continued proclamations of innocence, the big boy from Peterborough has resigned his seat. In what was described as an emotional announcement (is there any other kind when Harper's former parliamentary secretary speaks?) he articulated the 'noble' reason for his decision:

Del Mastro addressed some of his comments to Conservative Party MPs, [who were soon to begin voting on suspending him from the House] the party he was a part before he was charged in 2013. The party has been eager to distance itself from him since the guilty verdict.

"I told you that I would not put you in a position where you had to vote against me," he said.

"Stay united. I will not divide you. I will not be the one that divides you. I believe too much in what you do."

Oh, by the way, despite his conviction, he gets to keep his pension, which he will be eligible to begin drawing when he turns 55.

On The Further Debasement Of Parliamentary Debates

In which Parliamentary Secretary Paul Calandra, a loyal Harper soldier, does his utmost to discourage Canadians from watching the misnamed debates.

Thomas Mulcair Speaks

Noted recently is the widespread criticism that both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair have earned by either their silence or their very timid comments about the slaughter in Gaza. While most Canadians have probably come to expect the reflexive uncritical endorsement of all things Israeli by the Harper regime, many have been disappointed to see that the opposition leaders, save for Elizabeth May, seem cut from the same cloth.

But whether due to political opportunism, political expedience in reaction to that criticism, or a late blooming of a conscience, Thomas Mulcair has finally said something that sets him somewhat apart from Trudeau and Harper.

Although a modest foray into the world of principle, Mulcair's piece in today's Toronto Star, entitled Canadians want balanced and principled approach to Mideast conflict, tries to establish his party's bona fides in the following way:

When four children playing soccer on a Gaza beach were killed by Israeli shells, like so many other Canadians I was touched personally and thought of my own grandchildren. No child — Israeli or Palestinian — should have to live in fear of such violence.

As Canadians, we don’t want our country sitting on the international sidelines — unwilling to help and marginalized by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives’ one-sided approach.

Mulcair treads very carefully in his piece, working to provide a very balanced narrative:

During the current conflict in Gaza, we have criticized the indiscriminate rocket fire and breaking of ceasefires by Hamas — and have been clear that Israel, like all countries, has the right to defend itself from attacks.

Israel’s right to defend itself comes with the responsibility to protect civilian lives — and we have criticized the unacceptable number of Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli Defense Force attacks during this conflict. The horrifying shelling of a United Nations facility sheltering refugees in Gaza was completely unacceptable and a clear violation of that responsibility.

Although not much in evidence in recent weeks, Mulcair talks about the party's beliefs:

As NDP leader, Jack Layton argued that Canada must engage partners for peace in the region and take a balanced and principled approach. This is a vision I share. New Democrats — committed to social justice — understand that we must actively work for peace, not simply talk about it.

New Democrats have long been committed to a policy of supporting peaceful coexistence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders, an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and an end to violence targeting civilians.

So, take his words for what they are worth. A long-time political cynic, it will take more than an op-ed piece to convince me there is a genuine difference between the 'people's party' and the other two.

Our Politicians Serve Nothing But Their Own Ambitions

Given the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza, many in Canada have been dismayed, not by the predictable and uncritical enthusiasm for all things Israeli from the Harper regime, but by the relative silence or complicity demonstrated by the two major opposition leaders, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair; both have amply demonstrated that political expedience trumps principle in their cribbed set of values. By contrast, Green Party leader Elizabeth May has once more demonstrated that rareness of all qualities, integrity:

May denounced the three main federal parties for “parroting” Benjamin Netanyahu’s positions:

“It should be possible for all other political leaders to continue to press for a two-state solution, one that defends the right of the State of Israel to exist, but equally calls for a secure Palestinian state.

“It is simply not credible to take the stance of all three other leaders —Messrs. Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau — that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s siege of Gaza is legal and meets humanitarian standards. It does not. The death toll among Gaza’s civilians provokes the conscience of the world.

“Hamas is to blame for provocation, but to imagine that Israel is blameless is untenable. “

A Jewsih Canadian writer, Anthony Cantor, writes in today's Star about how such shameful compliance to a flawed Israeli narrative by people like Mulcair and Trudeau does the Jewish state no service because they conflate supporting Israel with endorsing the policy and strategic choices of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This leaves Canada’s pro-Israel, pro-peace constituency, among others, without political representation.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s refusal to push for a ceasefire is not unexpected. More concerning is the way that Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and, to a lesser extent, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair have failed to counter the Harper government with a strong message that Israel’s best interests are not served by the assault on Gaza. As a member of the Liberal party, I am deeply disappointed that Trudeau resorts to platitudes rather than forcefully opposing a foreign policy that I and many other Liberals reject.

He suggests these 'leaders' should take some strength and inspiration from

other friends of Israel who recognize that the war in Gaza can only increase Israel’s international isolation and foster radicalization among Palestinians. President Barack Obama, for example, recently wrote an op-ed for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Obama correctly stressed that Israel’s Iron Dome can ensure temporary security, but only a comprehensive, negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ensure Israel’s safety.

And yet Canadian leaders are silent as Netanyahu systematically undermines the possibility of a Palestinian state. Friends should not always tell each other what they want to hear. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, expansion of settlements and blockade of Gaza are major issues that drive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Resolving those issues would weaken the appeal of extremists such as Hamas.

Cantor writes a reasoned and convincing essay here. Unfortunately, the political cowardice of our current leaders means that in all likelihood, it will fall on deaf ears.

An Eloquent Denunciation Of Harper's Approach To Government

Watch as Thomas Mulcair denounces quite calmly, incisively and eloquently the myriad problems both of the Fair Elections Act and the entire diseased approach to governance embraced by the Harper regime.

Justin Trudeau also offers his view.

I Shop, Therefore I Am

First and foremost, how do you see yourself? Are you a citizen more than a consumer, or vice-versa? Are high-minded principles and vision your defining characteristic, or is how to get the best value for your money what drives you?

The questions that I just posed are, of course, on one level ludicrous, inasmuch as they suggest an either/or answer. Realistically, or at least ideally, we can be both. Yet to examine the rhetoric of our political 'leaders', our lives are defined by angst over cable selection, gasoline prices, and cellphone bills, and little else.

One of the books I am currently reading is Susan Delacourt's Shopping For Votes: How Politicians Choose Us And We Choose Them, which examines the kind of 'retail politics' that has been shaping the political landscape for decades. Beginning in the 1950s with early polling and focus groups, the process has become so refined that groups are now targeted in political campaigns with their 'issues' at the forefront.

Here is an excerpt from the inside cover of Delacourt's book:

Inside the political backrooms of Ottawa, the Mad Men of Canadian politics are planning their next consumer-friendly pitch. Where once politics was seen as a public service, increasingly it is seen a a business, with citizens as the customers. But its unadvertised products are voter apathy and gutless public policy.

One needn't look far to see egregious evidence of political debasement. As recently noted by The Mound of Sound, neither Justin Trudeau nor Thomas Mulcair offer any distinct difference to Harper, other than perhaps in style. Neither has the political integrity to question the tarsands, nor, to my knowledge, are they heard to ever offer an opinion on or strategy for dealing with climate change. In answer to Mound's question of why either of them wants to be Prime Minister, I opined that they perhaps just think they should be. No passion, no vision, just the politics of expedience seems to be their political raison d'être.

In his piece today in The Toronto Star about the upcoming federal budget, Les Whittington says it will be consumer-oriented:

The government says it wants to take aim at cable-TV packages that don’t allow consumers to pick and choose, payday loan companies, lack of competition among wireless providers and price differentials on the same goods between this country and the U.S.

And while Justin Trudeau sings an amorphous tune about the middle class struggling, Thomas Mulcair has this to offer:

He says the Harper government raises consumer issues but hasn’t followed through with action.

“So we’re going to talk to Canadians about how we can end the rip-offs at ATM machines, at the gas pump, and how we can ensure more Canadians have access to a low-interest credit card”.

Not a word about climate change. Not a word about carbon. Not a word about poverty. Not a word that reflects the semblance of a vision.

I'll close on a note that I hope demonstrates I am not some sort of ethereal idealogue. Yes, I think we get ripped off on cable, and I don't like it. Yes, more should be done to ensure fair business practices. But those concerns do not exclude larger ones, like growing inequality, the plight of the working poor, and a world in real climatic peril. No amount of political legerdemain can alter some larger, very inconvenient truths.

A Fact Check on Tory Lies

I suspect that the Harper regime's capacity for fear-mongering, character assassination and bald-faced lies, so much in evidence in previous smear campaigns against Stephen Dion and Michael Ignatief, will have a greater challenge in confronting Thomas Muclair:

H/t Larry Hubich

Tory Attack Ads Against Mulcair Begin

And like the good Pavlovian creatures the Conservatives assume the electorate to be, they eagerly await our unbridled panic.

When The Left Is Right

Although one wouldn't know it by listening to the predictable, hysterical, and politically-motivated campaign Harper Inc. is mounting against Thomas Mulcair for his 'Dutch disease' comments, there is a growing view amongst analysts and think tanks that the NDP leader is correct to an extent in his assessments of the economic impact of unrestrained tarsands development.

In his column today, Thomas Walkom offers an overview of analyses that verify the inconvenient truth to be found in Mulcair's assertions.

Thomas Mulcair: Wastrel or Canny Investor?

Given the widespread support that the the NDP Leader of the The Official Opposition is enjoying these days, it is hardly surprising to see a public campaign to erode that support getting underway. The latest, of course, is the non-story of Thomas Mulcair remortgaging his house 11 times; as the trained seals the Canadian public is expected to be, we are supposed to recoil in horror at the thought of this wastrel ever becoming Prime Ministere and doing the same with our 'fragile economy', to borrow a phrase from the perpetually-consternated Labour Minister, Lisa Raitt.

After reading an article in the Financial Post my son, who recently moved to Alberta, sent me the following thoughts:

Everyone's criticizing Mulcair for taking out 11 mortgages on his house and not understanding how to handle money, with the implication being that he'll bankrupt Canada. Here's a good rebuttal to that, saying that it's the opposite, and that he's very savvy with money. As the article says, borrowing to spend is a bad idea, but borrowing to invest is a good idea.

"If you are borrowing money at 3.5% and you have an opportunity for a yield of about 4.5% in a basic investment of say real estate investment trusts, that looks like a winner even before you consider the advantage of writing off interest."

Since he likely borrowed all that money to fund his political campaign, he made a superb financial investment.

Guess that means Harper Inc. is going to have to do a little more work on the Mulcair character-assassination file.

'Dutch Disease' Confirmed By Harper-Funded Study

Despite the ongoing Harper-led campaign of vilification against Thomas Mulcair for his comments about the Alberta tarsands and Dutch disease, a Harper-funded study confirms the truth of his assertion.

As reported in The Globe, Industry Canada paid $25,000 to three academics to produce the lengthy study, which is about to be published in a prestigious journal, Resource and Energy Economics. The study concludes that between 33 and 39 per cent of the manufacturing employment loss that was due to exchange rate developments between 2002 and 2007 is related to the Dutch Disease phenomenon.

Despite that inconvenient finding, don't expect the character attacks on Mulcair to abate. If past practices are any indication, they will probably be taken to new levels as the party of national division, the Conservatives, seek to drown out rational debate with hysterical name-calling and finger-pointing, the chief weapons in their childish arsenal.

Are You Watching the Polls, Mr. Harper?

Oh, how I hope this news shakes up Harper's arrogant smugness.

Fear And Loathing From The Right

The other day I wrote a brief post linking to a site developed by the Conservative party that seeks to sow fear about Thomas Mulcair's 'shadow' cabinet. That campaign of demonization against the most serious threat the Harper regime has faced for sometime is now ramping up, as reported by Tim Harper in his Star column today.

See Stephen, See Stephen Run

While the purpose of this Harper-initiated site may be to inspire fear of the NDP under Thomas Mulcair, I think it suggests a measure of, shall we say, nervousness, on the part of Mr. Harper and company.

H/T Kady O'Malley

Agitation At The Globe and Mail Continues

In the throes of some form of political delirium tremens since Thomas Mulcair's election as leader of the NDP, the Globe and Mail has apparently lost its lexicographical grasp, describing three resignations from the party with the following hyperbole:

Communications director joins NDP exodus under Mulcair

Expect more of the same as panic continues at Canada's self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record.'

Harper Inc. Continues To Deform Our National Ethos

While it is probably impossible to define the soul of a nation, one aspect of the Canadian psyche must surely be a generosity of spirit and a concern for the collective that is absent in many other nations.

It is the relentless attack upon this very spirit, with the intention of minimizing its influence in policy formulation, that I find the most reprehensible aspect of the Harper regime. While I have written before about these efforts, I was reminded of them in reading Tim Harper's column this morning in The Star. A few excerpts follow:

Mulcair had barely made his way to the stage late Saturday when the Conservative party fired off a release, branding him “an opportunist,’’ a man with blind ambition and a divisive personality.

There was Maxime Bernier, a minister of state from Stephen Harper’s tiny Quebec team, branding Mulcair a socialist, a man who will raise your taxes, take away your freedom and intervene daily in your life.

Then Heritage Minister James Moore entered the fray, bringing the attack up yet another notch, referring to Mulcair’s “vicious streak,” then repeating that he was “vicious and personal’’ in his approach to politics.

While these attempts at character assassination can be dismissed as simply reflections of the gutter politics with which Harper and his acolytes are intimately familiar, their costs can be high indeed, as pointed out by a Star reader this morning:

Re: PM disgusts voters with attack ads, Column, March 22

I am really concerned for the Canadian psyche. Here we go again with negative ads even though we are not in an election. What a message for every child in the schoolyard — name-calling, half-truths and demeaning another person's character are okay. Politics is destroying our civil society instead of providing much-needed leadership. The Conservatives should be inspiring us to work together for a better country. They should be talking about policies that will lead to a better, more cohesive society rather than attempting to humiliate the opposition.

They need to stop the negative ads and start focusing on their own party platform. Continuing that negativity will serve as a wedge in our country that can only get bigger and bigger.

Bonnie Bacvar, North York

It is a point well-taken, but one which this Harper Conservative government, I suspect, doesn't give a damn about.